|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:10 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
OK. Let's see.
You offer up arguments like: No one anticipated the actions of Pinochet.
Is that not like saying I didn't expect the levees to break?
Does this in any way absolve the US of guilt for what happened next?
You then offer up clear examples of Kissinger meddling in these countries' affairs, even evidence that, if one form of subversion didn't work, that he was ready to move on to the next?
You even go on to cite election results and, given the situation you're depicting, ignore the influence the CIA may, and according to your own posts, probably had on said election.
You of course offer up 700 years of skulduggery to at least partially explain this.
But WHAT are you saying? Since there was 700 years of internal skulduggery, that the US was free to act as it saw fit?
You talk of not wanting to enter someone else's court, but let's enter your own.
By your own reasoning, what is/was the US guilty or not guilty of?
Can you explain that?
To preface, "People were being murdered for political reasons. There was a local historical precedent for this. This was just the norm." does NOT excuse the US for what it fomented or allowed to transpire at that time.
The same goes for your Columbus argument.
Your deluge of sources, while interesting, really doesn't serve as any objective/moral high ground.
Long before you arrived here, there were a great many debates/threads dedicated to Fahrenheit 9/11.
You include this in your analysis. If you believe you have something to prove about this movie, I encourage you to start a thread about it rather than off-handedly assume you can include it in your examples of people being manipulated by propaganda.
 It was the norm at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
in_seoul_2003
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by in_seoul_2003 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please don't insinuate that I was hiding information when as early as page one of this thread I laid out the entire scope of U.S. involvement in Chile 1962-1970 in broad strokes (and you later added the details behind CIA's -- actually it was an interagency White House-directed task force -- massive financial backing of the Christain Democrats in the '64 elections, approximately $3 or $4 million in funds between '62 and '64, underwriting half of Frei's campaign costs)...and, by the way, the point of bringing up El Siglo in the first place was to counter the U.S.-centric version of events that you are clinging to and that I wrongly assumed was too well-known to have to review yet again in all of its details, and not an intent to hide info.
There is way too much cynicism in some of your posts about my position. Where have I ever said that the U.S. was not involved in these affairs, even disproportionately involved at times?
You and others take extreme exception to shifting the discussion away from the language of blame and a narration that places the U.S. in the center of all evil deeds. It's an obsolete position. Watergate is over. Nixon's govt fell. We left Vietnam and even McNamara admitted that it was all a mistake.
It's time to move on, then, further prosecution is not necessary. In any case, here's what I posted on page one. It didn't mention El Mercurio or any propaganda machine, but I think it fairly well covers the fact that the U.S. was in a particularly strong position and moved to dominate Chilean affairs, not only during election years...
| Gopher wrote: |
...It also might help to review the events of the Chilean "Track II" operation in Sept. and Oct. 1970, when Nixon ordered CIA to induce a unilateral military coup to overthrow Allende.
LBJ had previously awarded Chile $1 billion in Alliance funds, and this included $91 million in military aid and training programs. Washington also generously made available between $200-$300 million in short term loans every year. (CIA had spent approx. $2 million on influencing elections there between 64-70 -- Chile was to be a showcase for centrist, reformist democracy, an alternative to the Soviet-backed Cuban model for revolutionary change. Also, it wasn't just the U.S., but the Vatican, West Germany, the Italian Christian Democrats, a huge international coalition was working to defeat the Soviet-Cuban model in Latin America.) So, in any case, the U.S. should have wielded considereable influence there, right? I mean it's clear that Washington's capital dominated the country, no? |
The fact remains, that you went into specifics on propaganda ops in Chile and deliberately left out El Siglo and the Soviet and Chinese contributions to it, and especially the Communist-controlled labor federation, CUT and its doings...or worse: perhaps you didn't know?
And why did you also fail to mention Regis Debray?
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:02 am; edited 10 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| Furthermore, you are all too ready to disclaim comments attributed to Davis, Kissinger and Nixon as trivial and nothing beyond Washington politico-machismo. Yet, Allende was a hardline communist because of a metal hat and an AK-47? |
Don't take it up with me. Take it up with Cristian Perez, a leftist and pro-UP Chilean scholar whose grad school oral history work at the Universidad de Santiago -- as you know, the leftist university -- on Allende's revolution and particuarly the MIR earned him a place in a high-profile Princeton-financed research group in the late 1990s...
"...the author finds himself at odds with other studies on the Unidad Popular, which, in order to give a global explanation to this period in Chilean history, have taken as their basis the arguments of the chief personal assistant to Salvador Allende, the Spanish lawyer Joan Garces, converting them into a real interpretative paradigm which closes down any further discussion. According to Joan Garces's interpretation, the Unidad Popular was simply a democratic Socialist government which was trying to carry out the transformation the nation needed and responding to the wishes of the majority in Parliament. Those who adhere to this point of view seem to not know the fact that President Allende was a Socialist (not a neo-social democrat), a disciplined militant of the Chilean Socialist Party, who was pursuing the realisation of a socialist revolution along the lines of Marx and Lenin.
[Edit: paragraph break] To do this it would be necessary to construct different organisations of authority (industrial belts, popular assemblies, communal commands, etc.), a paramilitary force which would support those sectors of the Armed Forces [edit: don't forget that Senator Carlos Altamirano and the MIR were openly calling for Socialist infiltration and subversion of the officer corps] who were loyal, and who, if it were necessary, would provide the armed component to confront the right-wing military (the coup plotters)...
It was therefore not a lie to say that at the opportune moment there would be weapons: these would come from those members of the Armed Forces who were loyal [to Allende] plus those which the people would have accumulated...
The nature of [Allende's Cuban-trained protection detail and its revolutionary activities and plans, cited as but one example]...makes a lie of the neo social-democratic pretensions of Allende, as expounded by Joan Garces and others after him." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:03 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is way too much cynicism in some of your posts about my position. Where have I ever said that the U.S. was not involved in these affairs, even disproportionately involved at times? |
There is way too much of you discussing cynicism, period. Cynicism about your posts? What about your own cynicism regarding others' posts?
| Quote: |
| You and others take extreme exception to shifting the discussion away from the language of blame and a narration that places the U.S. in the center of all evil deeds. |
Who is trying to make the US the "center of all evil deeds"? I do believe posters are more concerned with US behavior in this region because it is their own government who has engaged in these actions/indulged in this behavior.
The evidence you've offered suggests there are some evil things the US is historically culpable of in this region.
Do understand that anyone who claims that America, the world's pillar of freedom, has trained people in torture and (at the very least) aided in the overthrow of socialist governments in this region in favor of dictators, is regarded as a nutter by a larger uninformed populace.
Your biblical deluge of analysis does not in any way prove this false.
The statement:
America has trained people in torture and (at the very least) aided in the overthrow of socialist governments in Central/South America in favor of dictators.
Is this statement true or false?
It's you who insert "cynicism" and "center of all evils".
| Quote: |
| It's an obsolete position. |
Again.
The statement:
America has trained people in torture and (at the very least) aided in the overthrow of socialist governments in Central/South America in favor of dictators.
Is this statement true or false?
What of Columbus's culpability we celebrate every Fall?
| Quote: |
| Watergate is over. Nixon's govt fell. |
So, when Watergate ended, that was the end of historical analysis of Watergate?
Hey, Columbus discovered America. End of story. Is that what you've learned about history?
| Quote: |
| We left Vietnam and even McNamara admitted that it was all a mistake. |
Ergo, shhh! No discussion of US actions in Central and South America.
It's "obsolete".
Perhaps, just perhaps, you could've simply stated on page one of this thread is that the US is culpable for events in this region, but not solely responsible.
Instead, you had to lay out how your opposition is a bunch of know-nothing US-hating dolts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
in_seoul_2003
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
...
Last edited by in_seoul_2003 on Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
what is the source ?
Anway the US fought the cold war. Did the US support bad people sometimes sure.
But when you are fighting a war you are going to make mistakes.
You can monday morning QB all you want but in the end the US was right to fight the cold war. The Soviet Union and other communists intended to destroy the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Anway the US fought the cold war. Did the US support bad people sometimes sure.
But when you are fighting a war you are going to make mistakes.
You can monday morning QB all you want but in the end the US was right to fight the cold war. The Soviet Union and other communists intended to destroy the US.
|
What was the mistake? Failing to kill or kidnap him the first time?
You read the crap that the Soviets did to thier own people, then you read the crap the anti soviets did to the other people. Dead is Dead, it doesn't matter how to the person who is killed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What was the mistake? Failing to kill or kidnap him the first time? |
No the US over reacted somethings or supported bad people who the US did not need to support.
However if the US has been so careful as to be sure not to make such mistakes then the US might not have won the cold war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
"Like I said, more forces were at work than the interests of the United States govt or CIA."
Indeed. Gopher, that's always been my contention. For example, the Chilean miltary, landowners, ITT, Chase Manhattan Bank. Many groups were involved to varying degrees. And of course the U.S. government and the CIA as well. But we can't rely on you to provide us with information regarding the full complicity of the U.S., so allow me to provide some additional info. |
In_seoul_2003: I'm going to respond to this post and address the points you raise in the posts that follow.
Let me start by saying we probably misunderstand each other and don't disagree too much, and this exchange has been unfortunate in some respects.
This notwithstanding, you are still not recognizing all of the actors involved in bringing about this outcome: you fail to mention the others who stirred the hornet's nest in your above-cited list: namely the Vatican, several Western European govts who were behind Christian Democracy and were also anticommunist, and also Moscow, Havana, and even Beijing. You fail to cite non-rightwing local contributors: namely the Christian Democrat factions that negotiated with the Allende regime, the Christian Democrat factions that refused to negotiate with the Allende regime, the Chilean Socialist Party, the Chilean Communist Party, the CUT labor federation, the MIR, and individuals like Senator Carlos Altamirano and President Salvador Allende. I'll also add Alessandri's National Party, a major contributor to this event.
Don't forget that the military suppressed all of these parties, even the parties that CIA had been backing, after coming to power in '73. They cared little about Washington's preferences.
You fault me for not detailing the U.S. role as fully as I could. I've reread this thread and can see where you're coming from. However, the information on U.S. involvement is between 30 and 5 years old (ranging from the Church Committee investigations to the Chile Declassification Project and the so-called Hinchey Report). Furthermore, it is high-profile information, with certain details, particularly regarding the disappearence, probable torture, and then execution of several U.S. citizens, appearing in the New York Times and on CNN. I assume a certain familiarity. Fault me for that. Don't fault me for attempting to conceal the U.S. role -- that's too cynical an assumption.
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| General Roberto Viaux's gang finally murdered General Rene Schneider...If they had no idea what was going on after the 15th of October why did the first attempt on the 19th transpire with tear gas grenades provided by the U.S.? Perhaps they were given to the assasins before the 15th... |
I find your choice of words here objectionable.
Viaux was not a gangleader but a retired Brigadier General who commanded the loyalty and sympathies of so many active-duty officers that it made the high command and the govt uncomfortable. Indeed, Viaux's so-called Tacnazo mutiny in October 1969 forced Frei to replace the Minister of Defense and the commander-in-chief (this was the context where Schneider was appointed to the top post), and it was even rumored that Viaux had presidential ambitions. There were, for example, 100 carabineros and 100 plainclothes detectives from the Investigations Police around his house, where he was under house arrest, and still he held a series of press conferences and received, according to Korry's reporting to Washington, a stream of constant high-power visitors who were courting him as a means to derail the moderate, left-of-center Christian Democratic program -- CIA's program -- and return Chile to a more traditional political economy -- again, this was in October 1969...
Your claim that they "finally murdered" the commander-in-chief suggests that they were attempting to murder him from the beginning, and I know that you know that that is not accurate. It was an attempted abduction that went bad.
You also use the word "assassins." There were no assassins here. There is no evidence to support that.
Ex-Special Forces Major Arturo Marshall was arrested in November near Allende's window with a high-powered rifle. Marshall was an extremist, a Viaux sympathizer, but acted entirely on his own, and, indeed, was easily discovered and arrested by the carabineros. That's the closest to assassination this whole thing got, that is, between September 1970 and September 1973 -- after September 1973, of course, there was terrible violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| It's your contention that wether it was Viaux or Valenzuela, both were acting independently of the U.S. which deemed the desired "abduction" so unlikely that it was better to wait....Realy? If they had no idea what was going on after the 15th of October why did the first attempt on the 19th transpire with tear gas grenades provided by the U.S.? Perhaps they were given to the assasins before the 15th. Very well, but why did they receive $50,000 each for a second attempt on the 20th? And why were they provided with the guns on the 22nd (the third attempt), the day of the murder? |
Here is some additional information that may help you understand where I'm coming from:
Kissinger, in the presence of Haig, told Deputy Director for Plans Thomas Karamessines ("Tom K.") to abort the coup on 15 October. Karamessines returned to Langley and briefed Broe and Phillips, who, in turn drafted a cable to Santiago Station based on what Karamessines had told them.
Santiago Station dispatched one of the four deep-cover operators -- who were in Santiago expressly to handle contacts with the military officers Track II was attempting to cultivate -- to contact the Viaux group in order to transmit the abort order. Viaux ignored it. Santiago Station reported this to headquarters.
On 18 October, after having picked up sudden signals that the coup was suddenly on again, that the Valenzuela group (the active-duty group of conspirators, not friendly to Viaux, because of his ambitions to be president) had, for reasons that are not clear in CIA cables, shunted Viaux aside and taken over, Santiago Station reported this to headquarters as well. But everyone was confused by this and did not understand who was doing what, and why.
See CIA to Santiago Station, 18 October 1970.
1. REALIZE THIS MESSAGE WILL ARRIVE SANTIAGO AFTER [DELETED NAME] CONVERSATION EVENING 18 OCTOBER. HOWEVER, HOPE YOU WILL DEBRIEF [DELETED NAME] THOROUGHLY SINCE WE HAVE SEVERAL OBVIOUS QUESTIONS.
A. WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN MORNING 17 OCTOBER TO CHANGE [DELETED NAME] FROM DESPONDENCY TO MEASURED OPTIMISM?
B. WHO EXACTLY IS INVOLVED IN COUP ATTEMPT? WHO ARE LEADERS AND WHICH UNITS WILL SUPPORT THEM?
C. WHAT DO COUP PLANNERS, AND STATION, CONSIDER TO BE THEIR CHANCES OF SUCCESS?
2. SINCE HIGH LEVEL POLICY DECISIONS IN USG MAY BECOME NECESSARY MUST HAVE AS MANY DETAILS AS POSSIBLE.
END OF MESSAGE
Signed William Broe
Signed David Atlee Phillips
Hardly in command of the situation...wouldn't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| It's your contention that wether it was Viaux or Valenzuela, both were acting independently of the U.S. which deemed the desired "abduction" so unlikely that it was better to wait....Realy? If they had no idea what was going on after the 15th of October why did the first attempt on the 19th transpire with tear gas grenades provided by the U.S.? Perhaps they were given to the assasins before the 15th. Very well, but why did they receive $50,000 each for a second attempt on the 20th? And why were they provided with the guns on the 22nd (the third attempt), the day of the murder? |
Here is some additional information that may help you understand where I'm coming from, Part II:
Upon receiving Langley's questions, Santiago Station researched and then reported back to headquarters the following day.
See Santiago Station to CIA, 19 October 1970.
STATION (INCL [DELETED NAME]) MAKING NO ATTEMPT TO EFFECTIVELY SHARE IN PLANNING OF PROFESSIONALLY EXECUTED MILITARY COUP, LET ALONE TO SECONDGUESS [sic] RINGLEADERS. AFTER BRINGING [DELETED NAME] TOGETHER WITH [SEVERAL DELETED NAMES] [he] DISCREETLY WITHDREW WHEN [DELETED NAME] POINTEDLY STATED "THIS CHILEAN MATTER." WE SOMEHOW FEEL THAT THIS WHOLE OPERATION SO UNPROFESSIONAL AND INSECURE THAT, IN CHILEAN SETTING, IT COULD STAND FAIR CHANCE OF SUCCEEDING. ASSUMING REF DATA AVAILABLE [edit: this refers to the questions in the the headquarters cable], WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE? UNDER RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ALL STA REQUIRED TO DO IS TO RENDER HELP (IF ASKED) AND ASSURE PLOTTERS THAT THEY WILL NOT BE LEFT HIGH AND DRY IF THEIR COUP SUCCEEDS. THIS WE HAVE DONE. HQS SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT [diplomatic] RECOGNITION FOLLOWS ON HEELS OF SUCCESSFUL COUP AND THAT U.S. OFFICIALDOM NOT PERMITTED TO THROW SPANNER INTO MACHINERY.
END OF MESSAGE.
The emphasis is mine to show what they were authorized to do, what they did, and how the Chilean officers threw their contact agent out of a strategy session, so they weren't even positioned to answer Langley's querry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| It's your contention that wether it was Viaux or Valenzuela, both were acting independently of the U.S. which deemed the desired "abduction" so unlikely that it was better to wait....Realy? If they had no idea what was going on after the 15th of October why did the first attempt on the 19th transpire with tear gas grenades provided by the U.S.? Perhaps they were given to the assasins before the 15th. Very well, but why did they receive $50,000 each for a second attempt on the 20th? And why were they provided with the guns on the 22nd (the third attempt), the day of the murder? |
Here is some additional information that may help you understand where I'm coming from, Part III:
Santiago Station communicated with Valenzuela on the 20th and reported his intentions to headquarters.
See Santiago Station to CIA, 20 October 1970.
JUNTA PROGRAM, AS HASTILY SKETCHED BY VALENZUELA, EVISAGES [sic] "GOVT OF THE PEOPLE" WITH EMPHASIS ON CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS. HEAVY TAXATION OF RICH, STRICTLY ENFORCED. JUNTA EXPECTING USG TO BE FIRST AMONG NATIONS RECOGNIZING IT, WILL CONTINUE FREI'S NATIONALIZATION PROGRAM. JUNTA WILL URGENTLY NEED FOOD, ECON, AND TECH AID. WILL LEAN HEAVILY ON U.S.
END OF MESSAGE.
Whatever else you may think of CIA: CIA did not lie to CIA in its confidential reports and cables. This was indeed what Valenzuela told Santiago Station's deep-cover operators on 20 October. Whether Valenzuela was dissumulating is another matter. However, I would point out that Peru's military had already staged a leftist military coup, in 1968, and Peru's military leaders under General Velasco indeed pursued a program very similar to the one Valenzuela had outlined here. It is therefore not inconceivable that Valenzuela and his fellow conspirators had this, and only this, in mind.
Another cable referenced their plan to use Schneider's "disappearance" (he was to be placed in Buenos Aires) as a pretext to use carabineros to arrest leading leftist extremists, however, and probably exile them -- although this point isn't entirely clear. They also planned to retire all active-duty admirals, placing a sympathetic captain in command of the Navy to silence dissent from within the military.
In any case, CIA officers weren't exactly rubbing their hands together, and planning to assassinate, torture, or otherwise hurt people, or support said activity, and they certainly were not in command of the Valenzuela or the Viaux groups at the time that Schneider was killed. They weren't even sure of precisely what was happening or exactly who was involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| But we can't rely on you to provide us with information regarding the full complicity of the U.S... |
Here is some additional information regarding the U.S. role, between 1964-1970 that I deliberately left out, assuming that, as the information was thirty years old, perhaps it was not important enough to place on this thread:
See U.S. Senate, Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973, at Part III, Section A, "the 1964 Presidential Election." (What follows is my summary, not a quote.)
The 1964 election was a tense affair, at least for some. (CIA's support for the Christian Democrats and Frei's campaign was indeed covert.) A private group that called itself "the Legion of Liberty" approached Santiago Station in June and proposed a military coup in the event Allende was elected president. CIA rebuffed this group. Soon thereafter the Chilean Defense Council, or the high command, approached President Jorge Alessandri and the United States Embassy to propose a coup to block an Allende presidency should he win. The deputy chief of mission chastised the unlisted Chilean Air Force general who had approached the embassy with this proposal. The generals did not broach the matter again.
So the United States vigorously discouraged all discussion of a possible coup in '64.
As you know, In_seoul_2003, Washington's strategic goal in Chile was to counter the Soviet- and Cuban-backed model for revolutionary change in Latin America with an alternative model for democratic left-of-center reform, and this plan was based on the earlier success enjoyed by the CIA-backed Italian Christian Democrats. Their goal was not to destroy Chilean democracy or to put a dictator in power, at least not until local actors, local conditions, some of them acting on their own, and others backed and supported by Moscow, Havana, and others, thwarted the Kennedy Administration's ill-conceived plans for the southern cone...for as we all know, the Chilean Christian Democrats weren't the Italian Christian Democrats, Chile was not Italy, and South America was not Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
